[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I find it amusing when people accuse Christians of ignoring science and refer to Creationism or Noah’s flood as proof of that. Then ignore the glaring hypocrisy of secular science such as when they say the giant canyon on Mars, which is the length of the entire U.S., was caused by flooding in an apparent short period of time but then say Grand Canyon could not have been caused in the same manner. But let’s continue to say fossils are this old because they are found in this layer of rocks and say these rocks are this old because these fossils were found in these rocks.
But hey, feel free to believe you are nothing more than the product of a chimp screwing pig.
[/quote]
Well argued. That that one guy proposed that one thing is definitely proof that the entire establishment of evolutionary biology is full of shit.
A less understanding observer than myself might invite you to go on believing that a perfect being with a distaste for homosexual sex and an on-the-record opinion about the proper way to cut the extra skin off a trousersnake zapped a pile of clay a few thousand years ago and voila![/quote]
So, you admit that it’s equally plausible? [/quote]
In the same way that it is as plausible that I am dreaming and that the universe as I know it does not exist as that I am not and it does.
That is, if we’re talking philosophical certainty, yeah, go ahead and call it all equally plausible.
Then again, if you think the universe might just be a decades-long dream you’re having, you might want to check your ass for signs that your head is stuck inside it.
Edit: I wrote this before your edit. The Spaghetti monster thing is simply burden of proof. It has little to do with my point, which was that cherry-picking the dumbest shit in your opponent’s catalog is a pretty dishonest way of going about things.
But yeah, obviously I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were real people.[/quote]
But it is to the point. I don’t mean philosophically, I mean factually. The root of the argument is infinite regress versus causation. For which, there can be no proof on either side. You can approach the question through rationality, (to which I think causation has the edge, but we can call them equally factually plausible). Given causation in general is equally factually plausible to unending regress, all initial conditions for the causation side are equally factually plausible. That includes the universe being 10 minutes, or days, or years, or millennia old. The factual odds that it would start trillions of years ago with conditions and rules that would eventually lead to exactly the present state, versus the universe starting in its’ present state are completely factually, statistically equivalent.
“Science” people don’t seem to get contentions if causation is proposed in the big bang time area, but talk about it being closer to modern day (an equally logically valid position) and they generally lose their heads.
Creationism, and even the literal Adam and Eve story, are at root, on equal rational footing with evolution. [/quote]
That uncertainty is present in either case–in every case–does not mean that one cannot stand on firmer ground than another.
And the argument may or may not be “causation” vs. “infinite regress,” but Adam and Eve are necessarily implied in exactly neither of those alternatives. I, for example, am an agnostic theist–a person who says that he thinks that a God, and therefore a creator, exists–and yet I think Genesis is nonsense.
However, I do find it interesting that you say this:
[quote]
The root of the argument is infinite regress versus causation. For which, there can be no proof on either side.[/quote]
Because in another sprawling thread about proofs of God, I am arguing something very similar.